CETUS DEVELOPMENT, INC. VS.

CA CASE: Petition for review on certiorari on the decision of the CA dated January 30, 1987. FACTS: 1. Private respondents, Ederlina Navalta, Ong Teng, Jose Liwanag, Leandro Canlas, Victoria Sudario, and Flora Nagbuya were the lessees of the premises located at No. 512 Quezon Boulevard, Quiapo, Manila, originally owned by Susana Realty. (Month-to-month basis) Rates: Ederlina Navalta: Php 80.50 Ong Teng: Php 96.10 Jose Liwanag: Php 40.35 Leandro Canlas: Php 80.55 Victoria Sudario: Php 50.45 Flora Nagbuya: Php 80.55 2. March 1984 Susana Realty sold the leased premises to the Cetus Development, Inc. 3. April June 1984 private respondents continued to pay their monthly rentals to a collector sent by the petitioner. July-September 1984 they failed to pay their monthly individual rentals as no collector came. 4. October 9, 1984 petitioner sent a letter to each respondent demanding that they vacate the subject premises and to pay back rentals from July-September within 15 days from the receipt thereof. Upon the receipt of the letters, respondents paid their respective arrearages which were accepted by the petitioner subject to a unilateral condition that it was without prejudice to the filing of an ejectment suit. 5. Subsequent monthly rental payments were accepted by the petitioner under the same condition. 6. Petitioner filed with the METc of Manila complaints for ejectment against the respondents for failure to vacate the premises. 7. Private respondents claim: They paid their monthly rental regularly through a collector of the lessor Their nonpayment of the rentals for the months July-September was due to the failure of the petitioner to send its collector They were loss as to where they should pay their rentals (new owner or original owner?) One of the respondents called the office to inquire as to where to make the payments and he was told that a collector would be sent, but no collector was sent. 8. Private Respondents Motion for consolidation of the six cases. As a result, cases were consolidated. 9. Trial Court: dismiss the cases on the grounds that the rentals had all been paid and hence, the plaintiff cannot eject the defendants from the leased premises. There are no rentals in arrears. 10. Petitioner appealed to RTC; dismiss for lack of merit. 11. Petitioner filed a petition for review of the decision of the RTC to CA ISSUE: WON there exists a cause of action when the complaints for unlawful detainer were filed considering the fact that upon demand by the petitioner from the private respondents for payment of back rentals, the latter immediately tendered payment which was accepted by the petitioner. HELD: SC affirmed the decision of the CA. 1. Section 2, Rules of Court, "Landlord to proceed against tenant only after demand." Statesthat the right to bring an 2.

3.

4.

5.

6. 7.

action of ejectment or unlawful detainer must be counted from the time the defendants failed to pay rent after the demand therefore. The demand required partakes of an extrajudicial remedy that must be pursued beforeresorting to judicial action so much so that when there is full compliance with thedemand, there is no need for court action. Two requisites in bringing an ejectment suit: there must be a failure to pay rent or comply with the conditions of the lease, and there must be a demand both to pay or to comply and vacate within the periods specified in Sec 2 Rule 70 (15days in case of lands, 5 days in case of buildings). In this case, no cause of action for the ejectment has accrued, no failure on the part of the private respondents to pay rents for three consecutive months. Article 1169, Those obliged to deliver or to do something incur in delay from the time the obligee judicially or extra judicially demands from them the fulfillment of their obligation. Petitioner failed to demand payment of the rentals when the obligation matured, thus, the private respondents cannot be held guilty of mora solvendi or delay in the payment of rentals. Demand to vacate was premature. Failure to send a collector is not a valid defense; it is customary for private respondents to pay rentals through a collector. Art 1257 of NCC provides that where no agreement has been designated for the payment of the rentals, the place of payment is at the domicile of the defendants. Delay in paying is not imputable to the respondents; it was attributable to the petitioners omission or neglect to collect.